New Analysis Says a High Ultra-Processed Food Diet Could Add More Than $350,000 in Lifetime Costs

Key Points

• Ultra-processed foods make up about 53% of U.S. adults’ daily calories, according to CDC data, but a new survey suggests many Americans underestimate how much they eat.

• Eating more ultra-processed foods is linked with higher risks of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and other health problems, although the research does not prove causation.

• A new economic analysis estimates that a diet high in ultra-processed foods is associated with $359,836 in additional lifetime costs compared with a diet lower in these foods, mostly because of the estimated value of a shorter lifespan.

Chips, soda, and frozen dinners may be tempting because they are cheap, convenient, and easy to grab. But a new economic analysis suggests that habit could carry a much larger price over time.

A report commissioned by prepared-food company Amy’s Kitchen and released by the company on Oct. 19 found that an American who consumes a diet high in ultra-processed foods may face $359,836 more in lifetime costs than someone who eats far fewer of them.

Health economist Lindsay Allen, PhD, founder of Proven Policy, based the estimate on two hypothetical 20-year-olds. One was placed in the top fifth of U.S. ultra-processed food consumers, with about 71% of daily calories coming from these foods, such as soda, chips, packaged sliced bread, and deli meats. The other was placed in the bottom fifth at roughly 38%.

That comparison still leaves the lower consumer eating a substantial amount of ultra-processed food, meaning the model contrasts heavy reliance on these products with a more moderate level of consumption rather than a perfect diet.

Allen then estimated the pair’s lifetime medical spending, lost income, nursing home care, and reduced life expectancy using a 2025 review that rated evidence for more than 30 health outcomes. She kept only the five outcomes with the strongest links: type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, colorectal cancer, depression, and Crohn’s disease.

According to the analysis, direct medical expenses may be only a small share of the total. About $21,417 was tied to illness-related costs, including doctor and hospital care, nursing home stays, and lost wages, with type 2 diabetes accounting for 76% of that amount.

The remaining $338,419 reflects the economic value of shorter life expectancy. The model estimates that heavy consumers of ultra-processed foods live about one year less on average. To put a dollar figure on that lost time, Allen used standard values federal agencies rely on when evaluating rules that affect mortality.

“Especially in this economy, people tend to think about the sticker price of food, not the downstream cost of eating it,” Allen said. “People typically only see the price on the receipt, and don’t consider the invisible costs associated with eating a high ultra-processed foods diet over time, including a shorter life expectancy, which carries a sizable economic cost of its own. That gap between what people expect to pay and what they’re actually paying is exactly why these data matter.”

Lower-cost swaps for ultra-processed foods

Reducing ultra-processed foods does not have to mean shopping for expensive organic items or cooking every meal from scratch. Budget-friendly staples such as frozen vegetables, canned beans, and plain oats can make it easier to build meals and snacks with fewer ultra-processed ingredients.

Some simple substitutions may help, though not every change will save money and convenience still matters. The aim is not to remove every ultra-processed item from your cart, but to find alternatives that fit your budget, schedule, and eating habits.

Allen said the analysis left out several conditions that could push the total higher, including dementia, chronic kidney disease, and psoriasis, because the evidence linking those illnesses to ultra-processed foods is still limited. “We deliberately erred on the side of leaving costs out rather than including health outcomes that didn’t clear our evidence threshold,” she said.

The results are striking, but so is the public’s lack of awareness about how much ultra-processed food they consume. In a Talker Research survey commissioned by Amy’s Kitchen, respondents were asked to estimate the share of their diet made up of ultra-processed foods.

The 2,000 Americans surveyed guessed about 16%, while CDC data show these foods account for roughly 53% of adults’ calories. Only 9% correctly identified which foods qualify as ultra-processed. Many people did not realize that common foods such as sliced bread, breakfast cereal, deli meat, and crackers often fall into that category. Half of respondents also mistook pasteurized milk for a processed food, and 40% said the same of rolled oats.

The survey found that half of respondents are not confident they know the difference between “processed” and “ultra-processed,” and 44% said they often feel overwhelmed by conflicting information. Paul Schiefer, CEO of Amy’s Kitchen, said labeling tools such as the Non-UPF designation can help. Amy’s Kitchen became the first frozen food brand to earn Non-UPF Verified certification in early 2026.

“Consumers shouldn’t have to be experts in food processing to understand what they’re eating or the potential long-term impact of their choices,” Schiefer said. “With ultra-processed foods so prevalent in our food system, greater transparency around ingredients and how food is made is essential. Tools like the Non-UPF Verified seal help make it easier for people to make informed choices for themselves and their families.”

The report also comes with major caveats. It was funded by a company that sells products certified as Non-UPF Verified. The underlying studies are observational, so they can show an association between higher ultra-processed food intake and worse health outcomes, but they cannot prove the foods cause those outcomes. The model also assumes a typical American keeps the same eating pattern from age 20 onward.

Still, Allen expects the conversation to continue evolving. “As research on ultra-processed foods continues to grow, estimates like this may only be the tip of the iceberg in understanding the full economic toll,” she said. The survey suggests some consumers may be willing to change: 42% said they would cut back if they knew ultra-processed foods would cost them more in the long run.

Read the original article on Food & Wine